The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Broadly speaking both sides had different objectives. The USSR was more heavily focussed n protecting its territory & immediate surrounds. The US had a much wider 'perimeter' if you will. It also had dramatically better power projection. Provided that any given dispute didn't actually threaten the USSR or its immediate region and the US held its nerve the US had an advantage. Didn't mean a guaranteed win, but it did confer an edge.

The Cuban Missile Crisis - it was a tit for tat. Missiles were withdrawn from Turkey.
Arab-Israeli War - Israel chickened out.
Bay of Bengal - the USS ENTERPRISE was deterred (yes, yes, that's not what happened but Moscow didn't know that, all they saw was that their task force stopped the Americans cold).

The Cuban Missile Crisis - it was a tit for tat. Missiles were withdrawn from Turkey.
Arab-Israeli War - Israel chickened out.
Bay of Bengal - the USS ENTERPRISE was deterred (yes, yes, that's not what happened but Moscow didn't know that, all they saw was that their task force stopped the Americans cold).

Arab-Israeli War - Soviets won?? No I do not think so for you were not looking at Soviet's pile before the game started. If you get millions but you had billions, it certainly does not mean you won. The Soviet lost a very important client - the Egyptians and another one, Jordan. The Soviets lost more than they won, hence an overall loss.

Sino-Soviet conflict - America won.

Cuban Missile crisis - A draw because US was getting its submarine ICBMs and Soviets were not getting its submarine ICBMs until much later and US was going to withdraw the missiles from Turkey anyway so US technically still had the upper hand.

Bay of Bengal - a Soviet victory.

So the final tally - one win, 2 losses, one draw. Not good winning percentage.

I was speaking of the immediate results. Israel did chicken out before the Soviet threat.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Sino-Soviet conflict - America won.

We all did. That was a nuclear war waiting to happen.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Cuban Missile crisis - A draw because US was getting its submarine ICBMs and Soviets were not getting its submarine ICBMs until much later and US was going to withdraw the missiles from Turkey anyway so US technically still had the upper hand.

The Soviets did not know it at the time and the POLARIS was in no way a good replacement for Turkey.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

So the final tally - one win, 2 losses, one draw. Not good winning percentage.

Again, lacking the proper information, look at it from their perspective.

Turkey was still a major NATO country and a nuclear-armed country at that so the effects of removing the missiles were negligible and the missiles themselves were not reliable. Cuba was nuclear free and there was an American base on Cuba.

And became easy targets for American subs since now we know where the Soviet boomers were headed and mapped out their sonar characteristics.

You forget how Soviet boomers were to operate. A destroyer screen pinging the hell out of nearby waters, forcing USN task groups to blast their way through that screen before they can get to the boomer which by that time, already tossed her nukes.

Cuba offerred such a staging ground. USN task groups would have to blast their way through the destroyer screens in Cuba before they can get to the boomers.

You forget how Soviet boomers were to operate. A destroyer screen pinging the hell out of nearby waters, forcing USN task groups to blast their way through that screen before they can get to the boomer which by that time, already tossed her nukes.

Cuba offerred such a staging ground. USN task groups would have to blast their way through the destroyer screens in Cuba before they can get to the boomers.

That means the boomers were blind and can no longer use sonar to navigate their way out so had to use presribed routes and pinging the hell out just alert the USN to where the boomer groups are and localize the boomers to a search area. Not an effective strategy.

How long does it take for the boomers to unload all of their missiles? Soviet boomers, IIRC, have not mastered of firing all of their missiles in quick succession such as within less than a couple minutes without stabilizing the buoyancy and center of gravity factor. If the destroyers are pinging like hell, then it is easy to see where the group is and the hunter subs can hone in on the sound of missiles launching quite quickly for it is damn impossible to mask the sounds of missiles launching.

Even more so, you could position an THAAD equipped Aegis destroyer to take out the missiles as they are being launched and have not reached their maximum velocity.

Because the Soviets thought we were serious about popping atomic tops and starting a deadman's party where everyone was invited. They called us Cowboys, but Cowboys with a history of slaughtering our enemies on a truly massive scale and no real personal experience of what it was like to be on the receiving end. The Soviets were terrified of us and were absolutely convinced that we were willing to fight a nuclear war. They never were, not against us. Every time push came to shove- Israel, China, Cuba, Turkey the Soviets backed down as soon as it looked like America was going all in.

Hand Nixon moved rapidly in 71 the Soviets would have backed down and left India hanging. India would have backed down too. Yankee Station was too close and Yankee Station had a good chunk of the US 17 carriers (12 large/super carriers, 5 Essex angled deck CV, 1 CVN) and 27 mostly gun cruisers. Some of the carriers would ahve to remain on Yankee Station but not all of them so there was nearby help for the Big-E. In addition there was a large force of B-52's in Thailand.

Given that against Pakistan alone the IAF suffered 10% losses to its pre-war strength in just 2 weeks. Add in USAF/USN/USMC aircraft to the mix which, with the exception of the Mig-21 totally outclassed everything India had.... Not a war India could win.

But to win it, Nixon had to be winning to eat higher ground losses in Vietnam as carriers left the area, the chance that the Soviets would send even more and different SAMs to Vietnam or stir up North Korea and a risk of cooling relations with China if the US was seen by the Chinese leadership as endangering China. Finally, to beat India, Nixon had to be willing to take his lumps in the street protests and Congressional debates inside America itself and he wasn't. Pakistan, then as now was a vassal not an ally.

Because the Soviets thought we were serious about popping atomic tops and starting a deadman's party where everyone was invited. They called us Cowboys, but Cowboys with a history of slaughtering our enemies on a truly massive scale and no real personal experience of what it was like to be on the receiving end. The Soviets were terrified of us and were absolutely convinced that we were willing to fight a nuclear war. They never were, not against us. Every time push came to shove- Israel, China, Cuba, Turkey the Soviets backed down as soon as it looked like America was going all in.

Hand Nixon moved rapidly in 71 the Soviets would have backed down and left India hanging. India would have backed down too. Yankee Station was too close and Yankee Station had a good chunk of the US 17 carriers (12 large/super carriers, 5 Essex angled deck CV, 1 CVN) and 27 mostly gun cruisers. Some of the carriers would ahve to remain on Yankee Station but not all of them so there was nearby help for the Big-E. In addition there was a large force of B-52's in Thailand.

Given that against Pakistan alone the IAF suffered 10% losses to its pre-war strength in just 2 weeks. Add in USAF/USN/USMC aircraft to the mix which, with the exception of the Mig-21 totally outclassed everything India had.... Not a war India could win.

But to win it, Nixon had to be winning to eat higher ground losses in Vietnam as carriers left the area, the chance that the Soviets would send even more and different SAMs to Vietnam or stir up North Korea and a risk of cooling relations with China if the US was seen by the Chinese leadership as endangering China. Finally, to beat India, Nixon had to be willing to take his lumps in the street protests and Congressional debates inside America itself and he wasn't. Pakistan, then as now was a vassal not an ally.

There was no way that US could alter the ground realities. yes the naval scene but not the ground realities or even aerial realities. And India was not going to back down in any case not especially after millions of refugees flooding into India.

Despite your belief in US, US is not the omnipotent power as you make it out to be.